Summations Only

And because the NRA so fully supports Obama's recent actions, on the front page of their website they posted Obama: Commander in Deceit: Dana Loesch strikes back at President Obama's executive order.--Percy

The NRA is attempting to change the subject from the actual Obama policy of Obama's executive actions. Many on both the right and left hate what Obama and the NRA just did, and the NRA needs to hide behind the "2nd amendment" issue as a smokescreen.That link of yours showed the NRA changing the subject. The recent policy action of Obama wasn't even mentioned.Here is a much better indication of where the NRA stands (frankly, I already showed you the Cornyn/NRA proposal of a few months ago but THESE LINKS BELOW show the NRA view of this SPECIFIC Obama action of the past week).

quote:

---

Source: CNN

​

Added on 10:17 AM ET, Sat January 9, 2016

​

Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, "Lone survivor" author and NRA spokesman, tells Smerconish he agrees with background checks for gun owners.

​

"Lone Survivor" Luttrell on Obama's Gun Law Proposals - CNN Video

---

quote:

---

Saturday on CNN’s Smerconish, Luttrell argued, when you start messing with the Constitution and what this country was founded on, our baseline is what we call it. It just opens up too many doors.
....
but Luttrell interjected, Let me put this out to you, man. I applaud him [Obama] for trying to do something, alright.
....
Something has to be done. I mean, I think that should be said, too. Everybody takes jabs at him but he’s trying to do something. I get that, Luttrell argued. And I’m not 100 percent on this, but didn’t they open up that if you get a psych eval and the doc thinks you’re crazy he can turn you over to the feds?

​

I don’t know if that’s internet lure or that’s part and parcel of this. Because my understanding and I’ve read it, Smerconish said. What he’s trying to do is identify who is a hobbyist at gun sales and to make people subject to background checks. That’s the bottom line. It seems pretty modest, frankly.
....
Yeah. I don’t see, why is that a problem? I mean, people get driver’s licenses and I don’t think that’s an issue. In 2016, I don’t think that that’s a problem, Luttrell said.

​

Marcus, they may yank you off that NRA ad, if they hear you say that, Smerconish interjected.

​

To have people with with psychological problems have a background check before they can buy a weapon? I don’t think the NRA would pull me off that one, Luttrell said. If they do, then I need to be pulled off it because you can’t give a weapon to someone who has mental issues, right.
‘Lone Survivor’ Marcus Luttrell Endorses Background Checks For Gun Purchases [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

---

Anyway, the NRA has angered many (libertarian types) on the right for a long time with their criticism that Clinton didn't go far enough in a fascist direction (such as "he hasn't enforced the background check laws already on the books").Your NRA link was the same old fascist crap ("Clinton or Obama havn't gone far enough yet") that informed people understand as sly support. It's only low-information folks that think it constitutes actual opposition.The NRA is speaking in codes. Telling one group (the uninformed) one thing, and another group another thing. This is typical in the United States (though it happens to some extent everywhere).This is one of those situations that demands a "decoder ring" (as the now old clich goes).Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

The most typical involves the issue of foreign aid, which Americans, especially on the right, oppose monumentally.Republican politicians are trained to respond a certain way to the legions of constituents that oppose foreign aid (politicians will admit that they can find 10 people in their districts that support foreign aid).The GOP politicians will say "I oppose foreign aid, except to those who are with us 100% of the time" of "I will votes against foreign aid except when our true allies need it in extreme situations". It usually is code for support of foreign aid to Israel (at the very least). Which then leads to treaties which enables support for most foreign aid.Constituents are led to think they oppose almost 100% of foreign aid but the political class, as well as the 1% of Americans who are informed, knows it means support for foreign aid in general.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

You're not seriously claiming that an interview with someone with no official capacity with the NRA gives a more accurate characterization of the NRA position than does the NRA website itself? They aren't leaving much ambiguity here: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You are just encouraging LNA to post more of this Obama/NRA conspiracy stuff.

What part of Obama's action are they challenging?The only substantive policy change part is Obama's capture of medical records for social security disability (mental health issues require 3-7 years of endless court challenges to "prove" mental disability), and the NRA offered legislation (a few months ago) to reward states that get the medical records to the central Federal database.The NRA has always supported banning people with so-called "mental issues" from owning guns (and blamed the ACLU for preventing such). The NRA has also always complained that people don't get arrested for trying to own a gun when they have a past criminal conviction. "they don't go after those who violate the law and attempt to get a gun... bla bla bla ...IT'S THE PROSECUTION STUPID...bla bla bla Why aren't we prosecuting people trying to buy guns?"The NRA disagrees with nothing here.It's just vague "Obama doesn't respect gun rights and our constitution""No respect for the 2nd amendment""No respect for the legislative process"Trickery.NRA has no choice but to slither around this and hope the specifics go away.

Okay, good point.--Percy

In another isolated incident, again another isolated parent has in an isolated incident killed his isolated child in a way that is absolutely isolated and is just another isolated incident that we shouldn't give a damn about, because it's isolated.

quote:

---

Militia Movement Leader Fatally Shoots Fellow Patriot Between the Eyes in Drunken Dispute:

​

Their plan to overthrow President Obama was solid. How did it go so wrong?

​

Vincent Smith, a right-wing organizer for the Paul Revere 2016 Final March to Restore America, fatally shot his co-founder Charles Carter in what appears to be self-defense during a drunken argument. The two men were organizing the march from the west coast to Washington D.C. with the intent of removing the corrupt leadership that has taken over our beloved country and ousted her God and constitution.

​

Authorities of Grayson County, TX, confirmed early on that one man had been shot in the head and that no arrests had been made. According to Williamson, Smith called him and said that U.S. Marshals agreed that his actions against Carter were in self-defense.

---

Heavily armed men with strong opinions ... plus booze. What could go wrong?

OK, RAZD, I'll admit that occasionally guns are useful. But one or two cases like this don't disprove the general point.

quote:

---

Obama Gun Proposals Largely Capitulate To NRA--And Nobody Notices
Jan 6, 2016 @ 12:26 PM
For more years than I can recall, gun rights advocates have implored those seeking to make it more difficult to acquire a firearm in America to use the laws on the books for keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them before further constraining 2nd Amendment rights.

​

Indeed, in a recent video released by the NRA, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre reminded us, yet again, that we could better address our gun violence problem by simply doing a better job with the laws we already have.

​

Under the existing federal gun laws, [Obama] could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock them up for five years or more. But he won’t do it, his Justice Department won’t do it, and the media never asks why.

​

LaPierre continued by noting, No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA.

​

He is right about that. The NRA is constantly arguing that we do not need new gun lawswe simply need to better enforce the ones we already have.

​

Apparently, President Obama has been listening.
Obama Gun Proposals Largely Capitulate To NRA--And Nobody Notices

---

The truth is hiding in plain site. The NRA (which doesn't represent truth) really is hiding though.

Gun control is unpopular because guns are considered an effective defense. It is imagined that guns make one safer from threats. Pull gun, aim, fire, and the threat is over.The truth is that guns, even in the hands of highly trained personnel, are a crap shoot for defense. Shoot at a disorderly father brandishing a gun and the bullet might go through his arm and kill his 12-year old daughter standing behind him (Pennsylvania girl, 12, killed after father aims gun at constable). Fire at what sounds like someone breaking into your house and you might kill your son returning home unexpectedly (Cincinnati father shoots, kills son he mistook for intruder). Become mentally unstable and you murder an entire family (Family, neighbors wait for answers after Hilltop fatal shootings).These are just the dramatic stories that make the news. In mostly ones and twos the deaths, murders and suicides mount, reaching more than 30,000 each year. The carnage won't end until people begin thinking of guns not as safety devices but as hand grenades or ticking time bombs that could go off without warning at any time.--Percy

Never mind. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is Mean World Syndrome fearmongering. "Go off without warning at any time?" Yes, that perfectly describes how guns operate. You make it sound as if they have a will of their own.So lets suppose that we pass the most draconian laws possible and completely ban private ownership of firearms tomorrow. How do you propose to get the guns off the streets after turning law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight?You have the laws now, but you don't have the most important element... the guns. There are twice as many guns in the United States as there are people and a whole lot of very pissed off, armed people. Now what? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

I didn't describe guns as hand grenades or ticking time bombs that could go off without warning at any time. I said that the carnage won't end until people begin thinking of guns not as safety devices but as hand grenades or ticking time bombs that could go off without warning at any time. One never knows when someone will become angry or depressed or careless. The guns purchased for safety and self defense are more likely to be used against oneself, one's family and one's friends, and one can never anticipate when or why. Proposing extreme measures that no one is advocating doesn't really help the discussion. The long term goal is to reduce gun ownership. Attitudes will change gradually.--Percy